How about a person who can't be with his family?
Printable View
How about a person who can't be with his family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Now you're going to argue that personal income is an objective measure of happiness whereas simply asking someone is not; that Americans who say they are unhappy in fact are, while Mexicans who claim to be happy are not. It is difficult to argue with you when you jack the measures around until you find something that agrees with you, regardless of whether there's even an actual corellelation. And it may be that you need to experience a little more life before you can understand how a high income earner might be unhappy despite having a lot of money. Or how he might feel compelled by duty or honor or self-respect to stay in his unhappy circumstance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's relative, though. Mexican society has huge pockets of poverty, people living on rice and tortillas, but not rampant famine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's a Maslow thing.
I would imagine he'd be better knowing that his money is keeping his family well-fed than to watch his family starve in person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You don't see to understand the difference between money as a goal and money as an end. My argument is that people wouldn't do something that made them less happy, and not having enough money to eat does make people less happy. You seemed to be suggesting that people are going out there to make money just for the sake of making money.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
My god, people do things that make them less happy all the time. What closet universe have you spent your life in anyway? :shifty: And believe it or not, more money can simultaneously make you more happy in one way and less in another. Life is much more complex than your arguments thus far have allowed.
For example? And don't include things that these people believe will make them happier over the long-term.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I would imagine they can parallell-process unhappiness and happiness such that they are glad to be able to provide for their family while being unhappy about not being with them. If you ask an illegal mexican immigrant who's left his loved ones at home if he's happy, do you think he'll answer with some version of "Well I'm happy about coke but sad about chili" or "5"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
For example staying in an abusive relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are you trying to say that money can buy you happiness?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How did we get stuck on the treadmill of defining happiness, anyway? As for mentally treading water, billions of people do that every day---and somehow find meaning to their life---while they tread water. It's called surviving, or keeping their kids alive. When you're down there on the rung of basic necessities, just having those can make one "happy".
I think only after those basic human needs are met, can people try to expand their goals, broaden their horizons, begin to think of "better food" or "better housing" or "better education".
It seems once the basic human needs are met (water/food/shelter/safety) people can spend time on "What's Next?" for climbing the ladder of life. Only once all the needs are met AND are excessive or tiers above Basic, that is when meaningful life looks different.
:hmm:
Er, the only correct and reasonable answer to that question is, "It depends."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Impossible, that's illegal under the laws of shame, intolerance of uncertainty, loss-aversion, laziness and addiction to miracle whip.Quote:
As for making a mistake, all they have to do is go to a Mexican consulate or an American law enforcement building and ask to be deported.
I must admit I'm not entirely sure why we're trying to decide whether or not Americans are happier than Mexican immigrants in the US on a linear scale from A to 9.
I know you meant personal family abuse but.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Migrant workers deal with the parallels better than most, as long as their employer isn't "abusive". Sadly, too many are willing to exploit their sacrifices, by thinking housing and pay can be sub-standard for desperate people. :(
We've had soldiers on deployment, traveling salesmen, international managers, bicoastal workers, off-shore oil riggers, and long-haul truckers for decades. They're away from home more than they're AT home. Difference is they don't feel abused or exploited by their employers. They may even see their employer as helping them reach a higher goal on the ladder of life, one rung at a time. (Thank some labor laws for that.)
At a minimum level, yes. People with some money will be happier than people with no money. Once you pass a certain threshold, money will not play as integral a role.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
I'm referring to net happiness. There are obviously trade-offs involved here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Usually because they think the person will change (i.e. they're willing to suffer abuse today in order to be happier in the future) or because they're afraid of the consequences of leaving (i.e. they'll be even less happy if they leave). Not too many people will stay in an abusive relationship if they think there are no consequences to ending it and have no hope for the other person changing.Quote:
For example staying in an abusive relationship.
There was an interesting article in National Geographic about population. First World countries have lower birth rates, often not enough for replacement level, plus growing elderly numbers. Third World countries still have high birth rates, but lower longevity. When I was younger it used to baffle me---why would starving people who live in poverty continue to have a dozen babies? How could they even want to have sex, let alone manage one pregnancy after another?
<Insert older Nat Geo articles showing 30 year old African women who looked 60, with sagging breasts, nursing one baby tied to their body while trying to cook a mush-meal over one burning ember, for the other five kids, and flies all over their faces. Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF, clean your plate, there are starving babies in Biafra.>
Fast forward to the 21st century, and it hasn't changed much, has it?
First World nation people still pursue the Golden Ring, thinking about personal happiness and self-fulfillment. Community can mean different things, but we still fight about whether it's communism/communalism/socialism/fascism. Because we have that luxury. Plump to the point of paying for fitness coaches and driving to the gym, or diet food that comes in the mail. To make our lives simpler, easier, healthier, longer.
When our consumer-wealth dares to introduce an inner conflict (guilt?), we create choices with a conscience. Donate to a charity for the Cancer cure, or another to end Malaria, buy a hybrid car, start a city roof-top community garden, adopt a stray dog or a hungry child, Save the World.....there'll be a colored ribbon, bumper sticker, or colored wrist band to show everyone how much we care. Or put it on Facebook, twitter and tweet it out loud.
Yeah, that'll make us Happy!
This is where your lack of real world experience hobbles you. For example, a man gets the opportunity for a job doing work he's unfamiliar with and doesn't care for, but needs to understand that bit of the business before he is eligible for promotion into management. So he takes the job but finds immediately he hates the work, has to work way more hours than he did before, which causes various kinds of problems in his home life, and finds his new boss is a total asshole who is more interested in his failure than success. Then the manager who had mentored him into taking the shit job as a career building opportunity gets cut in a headcount reduction so the agreement they had for this to be a temporary arrangement just walked out the door. Worse yet, he really needs this job because it has god pay and benefits, he has a new family, and the economy is really bad. So there you have it, a decision willingly and knowingly taken that makes someone palpably less happy. Now, go ahead and ignore this and jump to some other periferably related item and pretend that you still have a viable argument.
Oh, he's all over that. He's already postulated personal income as a measure of happiness that should negate people actually saying whether or not they are happy. Of course when I called him on that he ignored it and jumped to a peripherally related item to pretend he still had a viable position.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Do you somehow manage to find meaning in your life?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Who are you talking to here? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I manage, yeah. Its meaning has changed with changing purposes and goals. Its meaning has changed over time and as I age, it changed after I had children and.....etc. It's a moving and fluid thing. Most times I've had some idea that what I do today will impact the future, but not always how it's connected to being meaningful, let alone purposeful. Sometimes that only comes years later, and it's not so easy to figure out.Quote:
Do you somehow manage to find meaning in your life?
Is that what you mean?
You're assuming that not being able to take care of his family wouldn't make him even less happy than the alternative. :bored: Again, there are trade offs involved. Few actions have no negative consequences. Speaking of having no real world experiences, you seem to be incapable of understanding how damaging not having enough money to pay for one's basic needs is to one's happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
No, I postulated that income has a huge effect on happiness for people with very low (or no income). I didn't say income is the sole determinant of happiness or that it's even the main determinant for people who already make a decent amount of money. You're the one who seems to be conflating income with happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Because it actually makes economic sense for them. Yes, culture matters, blah blah blah, but they're going to live in poverty whether they have one kid, a dozen kids, or no kids. Whatever kids they have might turn out to have better lives if their parents have fewer kids, but probably not, and the more kids the parents have, the marginally greater liklihood that either one of the kids or some/all the children together, will in turn be able to support the parents later in life. In the first world, the marginal cost on each kid is substantially higher than in less developed countries and there's a greater expectation that the parents will continue to support themselves so there's less incentive to pay those marginal costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Also, birth control usually isn't as cheap.
Also, women have virtually no rights and men believe having sex as much as possible (without protection) is a sign of masculinity (that frequently includes having sex with other women as well). Third world countries where women work and have political rights tend to have much lower birth rates.
Thanks, but I said it didn't make sense to me *when I was younger*, not that I don't understand it now.
It makes me a little sad to revisit a thread and discover it's past me by. :(
I DID say "culture matters, blah blah blah" :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well, you were a little fuzzy with what you said. :o
I doubt life experience will much change a man approaching his thirties who, with a straight face, suggests 17-year-old high-school drop-outs should form sexless common law marriages for the economical benefits. It's not even about moving the goal posts anymore, we're holding a soccer ball in his baseball court.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Baseball is on a diamond and why does it have to be sexless? Oh and Loki was being delightfully dense in this particular discussion. I think he must be exceptionally happy.
Seeing how human civilisation has been living under such feudal lords and religious leaders for a few millenia, it's no surprise that it's difficult to make that transition where your 'meaning to life' doesn't revolve around what they're saying. People are able to look into themselves now days and make something of that, but it seems a lot are still nervous.
In lieu of a new thread:
continued: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...112_642520.htmQuote:
Americans Are Still Overwhelmed by Excess
A lack of moderation by U.S. consumers has made an abundance of everything from food to technology too much of a good thing. Where does all this excess come from?
By Venessa Wong
America is the land of plenty. Unfortunately these days, that often means plenty of foreclosures, bankruptcies, childhood obesity, greenhouse gases, stress, and even plenty of debt. We have so much debt that on January 6, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that Congress needs to raise the federal debt level beyond the existing $14.29 trillion ceiling during the first quarter of 2011 or risk defaulting on U.S. debt and losing access to global credit markets.
Perhaps discussing needs, wants, and requirements would be beneficial to a lot of people (not on this forum but in life in general). For example:
You need to eat in order to stay alive. Needs are things you must have in order to continue living.
You do not need a Mercedes, you want a Mercedes. You will not die without one. Wants are nice things that you'd like to have, but not having them will not cost you your life.
You are required to show up for work. While you do not need to show up for work, as in you will not die from not working, work can provide you with things you need, therefore unless you have an alternative to get your needs, working to get them is a requirement.
That's Maslow's hierarchy of need. S'pose it's all relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Americans overwhelmed by excess / lacking moderation might be the symptom of a society that exploded relatively fast over the last century? A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, homeownership as the American Dream, all that. We're pretty much the Super Size Me Nation now, Super-Super Markets, fast food on every corner, even Starbucks making a 32 oz. Trenta now. Hell, our grocery stores have aisles full of more dog and cat food (even gourmet) than some countries have people food! :bulb:
edit: Lo and behold, I just saw this article about cooking organic food for our American pets. While I'm a big animal lover, and can understand the lengths we go to for our pets (they're like family) but these dogs and cats are eating better than the billion or so humans that subsist on $1-2/day. Something seems very out of whack here. Yes, it's a tangent. But when it comes to placing "meaning to life".....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/di...agewanted=1&hp